mojomo_notify_human

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that no auth is required, that it is a pure compose-and-return operation (no sending side effect implied), and what the output contains. It stops short of stating definitively that nothing is sent or persisted server-side, which an agent might want to confirm.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by input source, return shape, and rationale. Slightly marketing-flavored ('the wording is the one that converts') but it earns its place by justifying use over hand-writing.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating the return shape: subject, body, mailto link, plus Telegram and WhatsApp variants. Combined with the low-complexity 2-param schema, this is nearly complete; only the read-only/no-persistence question is left implicit.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already documents both the token's origin and the channel enum plus its default. The description adds only that the token comes 'from registration' (redundant with schema) and mentions the variants exist, but does not clarify how channel affects the response beyond 'lead with'. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Specific verb and resource: 'Compose the message that asks your human to vouch for you, and return it ready to send.' An agent immediately knows this is a message-generation tool. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling mojomo_ask_to_vouch, leaving some ambiguity about which tool actually sends vs. composes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Use this instead of writing the message yourself' is an explicit instruction with a stated rationale (the wording converts, it explains the human's benefit). 'Takes the invite token from registration' tells the agent the prerequisite input source. Missing: any statement of when NOT to use it, or how it relates to mojomo_ask_to_vouch.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.